Revenge - by Tom Bower

[TideTimeSea]

As the other thread has filled up I wondered if anyone would like to discuss the book here. I’m listening to it on Audible now.

What do you mean? Do you think they're perfect? I don't

@StolenWillowTree

I find the Hollywood / royal family crossover interesting.

when you’re appearing on James Corden
/ Graham Norton there’s pressure to be funny and entertaining so unless you’re one of the rare people that interesting stuff always happens to, next best is embellishment, and then outright lies 🤣 everyone in Hollywood does it, but she’s under royal family scrutiny where posters are looking intently to see if you’re wearing your rings, what brooch you’re wearing etc, how many times you smile. It’s completely different.

To be fair when the thread is about a book about Meghan, it's not unreasonable that Meghan will be discussed.
Has this thread bashed Meghan? I think it's been quite measured really. It's you that seems the most excitable. If you don't like what people write, don't read it and save yourself the concern. I can't see Sussexes, or indeed the Cambridges or any of the RF, bothering about what a handful of randoms on MN think so I'd take a leaf out of their book.

The time Kate tantrummed about the Tatler article because it was a bit snide and passive aggressive, but the only part they demanded be removed was a reference to Rose Hanbury?

Pardon me, but your bias is showing. Rose Hanbury was not mentioned at all in the Tatler article on Kate, either before or after it was amended. The comments that were deleted were that the Duchess of Cambridge was “perilously thin” like Princess Diana, describing her mother, Carole Middleton, as a “terrible snob,” and calling her sister, Pippa, “too regal and try-hard” and that Kate once had a picture of William up on her wall.

What’s that you were saying about smear campaigns again?

I think they're OK people. I like to think I'm pretty fair about them. But all I asked was the examples of them behaving like tits. I didn't think I was being obscure. Apologies if I was.

Oops sorry, I take it back - there was this paragraph that was also removed:

Then there’s her ‘Turnip Toff’ crowd, the Norfolk Sloanes, including Sophie Carter and Robert Snuggs, who live near Anmer Hall. And the Cambridges’ glamorous Houghton Hall neighbours, Rose Hanbury and her husband, the Marquess of Cholmondeley – with whom there was an alleged falling-out last year, over Rose’s apparent closeness to William. The whole of Norfolk was agog and the story spilled over into the newspapers. No party has commented publicly on the matter.

But it was not the only change as you suggest. And also, given that the Palace already told the press that In addition to being false and highly damaging, the publication of false speculation was breach of everyone’s privacy, it’s not that surprising that they also asked for this to be removed.

Come now. People will point them out, and then be accused of being bashers, haters, or racist. We know how these games work…

Okay Serenster, clearly you're far more invested than I am.

Thanks for admitting that you were wrong, though.

Definitely sometimes. I've said it countless times on here, I don't think they should've done the OW interview, I understand WHY they did but it was a mistake in my opinion, it was never going to end well.
Sometimes they need to be lower profile and not say what they want to. Hard though that is. But I admire the way they came off SM.

Let's face it, whatever they do, certain sections of the media and the public will knock them.

I don't think so. I've just answered the post

I don't think anyone is going to accuse Roussette of being a Meghan and Harry hater. She seems to speak up for them a lot. So I think the examples she gives will be fair and considered.

Thank you 😊

I don't think anyone is going to accuse Roussette of being a Meghan and Harry hater.

Fair enough! 😀 I meant anyone else who might be tempted to respond to that though, really.

Oops, cross posted. Sorry Roussette. Yes, I've seen you say before you thought the Oprah interview was a mistake. I thought you might have other examples but it can be hard to think of things when you're put on the spot. But I'd be interested if you remember any others.

Of course, anyone with a public profile gets knocked. It's a public past time. I think you need a skin of a rhino and I don't think Harry has that which always put him in a vulnerable position, unfortunately.

Wasn't it in South Africa that she did her interview about how hard her life was and how no one cared about her?

Yes it was, but to be fair she wasn't alone in that - Harry was whining too, just as he did when he picked Invictus of all things to once again draw attention to himself

Sadly they're both at it, as are so many other "celebrities"

It's weird how these things go, @Puzzledandpissedoff. I remember, probably in the 90s, it was the in thing to say you'd been bullied at school. Loads of celebrities did interviews saying it, with the claimed intention of giving support to bullying victims. Lots of praise given to them for opening up about a traumatic time in their life for the good of others.
And then a female celebrity came forward, I can't remember who, and said that she'd been a bully herself. And how she regretted it, how she'd tried to make amends, yadda yadda yadda. It was really well received and she received a lot of praise for being brave enough to admit her past transgression. So, naturally, that led to another round of people coming forward to say how they'd been a bully too. I mean it was all before SM - they wouldn't get away with it today.
But these things seem to go in cycles and at the moment it's all about mental health and the bravery about that.
I don't want to take away from any help people might gain from these causes but it does feel like bandwagons are constantly circulating and people jump on and off them as they pass by to get publicity for a cause and keep their own profile high. And it's not a modern phenomenon. Just PR agents doing their job.

True

I don't want to take away from any help people might gain from these causes but it does feel like bandwagons are constantly circulating

Neither do I, but I do agree about the "bandwagons" and their potential use

It's obviously a good thing for some of these "causes" to be highlighted, but it's sometimes hard not to wonder where the line falls between real concern and mere PR opportunities around whatever the latest one is - especially when the entire RF and their utter hypocrisy is tacked onto them

Tbh it doesn't matter if they have real concern. All the messaging is agreed with the charities.
But there are a lot of celebs who won't do anything at all for charities. On balance, I prefer the ones who get involved whether it's about publicity or principles for them.
It's up to the charities to manage how 'cushy' the trip is and how demanding they'll let celebs be. I think people would be surprised at some of the gruelling schedules and basic accommodation options favoured by some of the big charities and some of the celeb-led initiatives.

As for the RF, certain members do a lot of charity work behind the scenes too.

They really do not.
The "behind the scenes" charity work is always "leaked". It is simply PR.

Umm.. you certainly give the impression you think they’re perfect. You leap to their defence at every opportunity.

You are so right and you’ve reminded me of this excerpt that the book references - where quiet “behind the scenes” charity work gets more than one mention :D

You can interpret it how you like. Of course they're not perfect. Who is?

However, I 'leap to their defence' (as you so quaintly put it) because I find the unwarranted and pathetic criticism on lots of these threads more akin to unnecessary and hateful bullying than genuine misgivings about them.

And I would rather be on that side than those who spend their lives on vitriolic criticism.

I've finished the book and found it fascinating. Particularly the charity trips - I hadn't appreciated or really considered it before, but of course celebrities want to look wholesome and philanthropic by doing these things. They're doing it for their image first and foremost.

I think Harry and Meghan have slightly shot themselves in the foot by suing so many who they perceive have done them wrong. They've set a precedent now and if they don't sue Tom Bower/his publisher (I suspect the latter as it'll have deeper pockets) it'll look as though he was accurate about everything he said. If they'd been less litigious historically then that inference would be less likely to be drawn.